D&D 5E Stealth

[MARCVS AVRELIVS]

All I know is that my car keys must have a pretty high Stealth skill, because I never seem to see them even when they're sitting in the open on the corner table where I forgot I dropped them when I came home, even though I just spent 10 minutes failing my Perception checks to find the damn things.

Related, we're all familiar with the Invisible Gorilla (and its variants) test, right?

 

[Coredump]

The situation is everything. In this case if the guard never detected the PC for whatever reason then yes, hiding behind the crate would be possible. If the guard was aware of the PC ducking behind the crate then being quiet doesn't mean anything. The Pc's location is known and the crate may still provide cover as a benefit but no advantage for hiding would apply.

But you are missing my point. I'm not focused on if they are Hidden or Not Hidden. I only care about what happens next.

For example, I would say the PC is Hidden. But I would not allow the PC to get surprise on any attacks because the enemy knows where they are and where the attacks are coming from. So is there any difference between my Hidden and your Not Hidden? If there is no difference, then the argument is purely semantics and a waste of time.


With my version of Hidden, if the PC used a Subtle Misty Step the guard would not be able to tell. How would you rule it?

 

[Ristamar]

I'd say the PC has total cover, no advantage or surprise. He's only considered to be "hidden" (with appropriate bonuses) if the guard didn't perceive him before he scampered behind the box, or somehow manages to hide elsewhere before the guard perceives him again.

 

[TDarien]

But you are missing my point. I'm not focused on if they are Hidden or Not Hidden. I only care about what happens next.

For example, I would say the PC is Hidden. But I would not allow the PC to get surprise on any attacks because the enemy knows where they are and where the attacks are coming from. So is there any difference between my Hidden and your Not Hidden? If there is no difference, then the argument is purely semantics and a waste of time.


With my version of Hidden, if the PC used a Subtle Misty Step the guard would not be able to tell. How would you rule it?

the PC would need to have taken the Hide action in order to use Subtle Misty Step unnoticed. That may be obvious, but you can't be considered hidden without taking the Hide action on your turn. I think that some people may forget that, because it doesn't get mentioned explicitly very often. Also situations like these are exactly why hiding must be possible even if a creature sees the PC move there.

Personally, I allow the PCs to get advantage from behind the crate...most of the time, but this is totally my call as a DM (I feel it falls within the "under certain circumstances" clause and is just more fun); you rule differently and that's perfectly ok. Usually if I have an especially smart monster/NPC they might spend their turn searching or ready an action to attack if the PC pops out. In such a situation the PC would not get advantage when shooting from behind the crate.

 

[Hriston]

It most certainly is deductive reasoning. You're using your memory to fill in the gaps in your perception. You saw me go behind that pillar, there's nowhere else I can go without you seeing me, therefore, I must still be there. You can call it whatever you want, but it absolutely is logic and deductive reasoning. You're skipping that step in the process. While that happens automatically for you, a less intelligent creature might not reach the same conclusion.

You can reach the same conclusion by using deductive reasoning, but it is absolutely unnecessary. The deductive process would go something like this:

1. Creatures who move behind objects with nowhere else to go are still there.

2. That creature moved behind an object with nowhere else to go.

3 Therefore, that creature is still there.

Humans become capable of deductive reasoning in early adolescence, so according to your reasoning we shouldn't expect a creature less intelligent than a typical eleven year old to comprehend that the creature is still behind the pillar.

However, humans less than a year old are capable of understanding that objects continue to exist even when they can no longer be seen or heard. This is called object permanence, and it doesn't require the use of logic at all. The mere fact that the creature existed before it went behind the pillar leads to the belief, or the assumption, that the creature continues to exist behind the pillar, which actually doesn't follow logically. The creature could, in fact, be anywhere, or actually cease to exist at all. Yet the brain learns to make this somewhat illogical leap in infancy because, through trial and error, the child develops a sense of how objects behave. Logic, and especially deductive reasoning, come much later.

Your memory has nothing do do with your perception. At all.

Perhaps we're using different definitions of perception. Here's a description from Wikipedia that I think is quite nice:

Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment. All perception involves signals in the nervous system, which in turn result from physical or chemical stimulation of the sense organs. For example, vision involves light striking the retina of the eye, smell is mediated by odor molecules, and hearing involves pressure waves. Perception is not the passive receipt of these signals, but is shaped by learning, memory, expectation, and attention.

So you see that memory has everything to do with the way we understand the raw sensory information we receive from our environment. Without that understanding, there really is no perception.

See here's the thing though. The lack of clear benefit doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any benefit. There could be possibilities. Like I mentioned earlier. Say I moved behind a pillar. There's no where for me to go, so I must still be there, according to you you still know my location. However, come around the pillar guess what, I'm not there! How did that happen?

What you didn't know is there was a secret door built into that pillar, and I ducked through it while I was obscured from your view. However, In order to do this undetected I must take the hide action. If I didn't, you would know I moved, because your other senses gave you clues.

Now, suppose you knew about the secret door and I did the same thing. I move behind the pillar and hide. Now, did I go through the secret door or not? You have no way of knowing, because your senses can't detect me. Situations like this is why it must be possible to hide, even if there is no clear way to move from the hiding spot. The hiding is not tied to the movement at all, as hiding is an action.

I understand what you're saying here about the timing of the Stealth check. The movements you're describing, however, are inextricably tied to the act of hiding. How would the character open and move through the secret door, and not be detected if she were not doing so stealthily? Those movements are the attempt at hiding that you are describing. That's when you should be making a Stealth check. What good is it to sneak quietly behind a pillar in full view of your enemies? You see, you're not hiding behind the pillar anymore. You're hiding inside the pillar, behind the secret door. Getting there is your attempt to hide.

EDIT: Besides there's a better reason why the halfling should be able to hide behind a creature, even if she's observed going there. It's ing cool.

"Where the heck did she go? SHE WAS JUST THERE!!" *gets pelted with a sling* "OW!"

Of course I'm not going to mess with the rule of cool, so in all sincerity, if this is fun for you, have at it.

 

[Hriston]

Um guys.... it appears a lot of the vitriol is based on an issue of semantics. So I suggest you skip past that part to see if there is any *subsantive* differences.


A PC is in a room with nothing but a crate. The PC ducks behind the crate and gets really quiet and tries to hide from the enemy Guard in the room.

One faction says "He can Hide, he is Hidden"
Other faction says "He can't Hide, they know where he is"

Okay.... lets skip over what term you use or don't use for that situation..... what is the result? What are the differences to gameplay if you call it "Hidden" or you call it "Behind a crate being quiet"?

For example:
Next turn, can that person shoot from the crate and get advantage?

Since there's nothing to distract the guard I wouldn't give advantage, unless by "shoot from the crate" you mean that he is somehow peering and shooting through the slats of the crate and can himself see the guard.

I wouldn't say he was hidden, but if he had somehow had the opportunity to hide the only difference I can readily see is that when he attacks he would reveal his position, which is of course not possible if not hidden.

So your point is taken, but I think it speaks to the fact that the situation you've presented isn't really appropriate for hiding, since there's no real benefit to be derived thereby.

By the way, is "Hidden", with a capital H, even a thing? I mean, it isn't a condition or anything is it?

 

[Hriston]

All I know is that my car keys must have a pretty high Stealth skill, because I never seem to see them even when they're sitting in the open on the corner table where I forgot I dropped them when I came home, even though I just spent 10 minutes failing my Perception checks to find the damn things.

Related, we're all familiar with the Invisible Gorilla (and its variants) test, right?

Inanimate objects don't have Dexterity scores, so they can't roll Stealth checks. If they are hidden, however, there is a DC to find them, provided you're looking in the right place. Since your keys are out in the open, however, one of two things is happening:

Either you're looking in the wrong place and no amount of skill in Perception will ever help you, or you're distracted by all the other objects cluttering up the corner table, which is the same thing, because you're looking at those other objects and not at your keys.


The invisible gorilla is also a matter of being distracted rather than Perception.


Basically, my point is only hidden objects/creatures require a Perception check to notice them, as long as you are looking in the right place, and you aren't distracted.

 

[TDarien]

Ramblings about memory and perception

I understand what you're saying, but don't you understand the sensory data and your memory can conflict? That's kinda what's happening when a creature hides. Logic (your memory) tells you the creature is still there, but your senses tell you it's not. This is how real-life magicians make their money.

I understand what you're saying here about the timing of the Stealth check. The movements you're describing, however, are inextricably tied to the act of hiding. How would the character open and move through the secret door, and not be detected if she were not doing so stealthily? Those movements are the attempt at hiding that you are describing. That's when you should be making a Stealth check. What good is it to sneak quietly behind a pillar in full view of your enemies? You see, you're not hiding behind the pillar anymore. You're hiding inside the pillar, behind the secret door. Getting there is your attempt to hide.

This is the heart of my point. Because hiding requires an action, it is completely unrelated to the movement. In order to do anything stealthily, you must first take the hide action. However, the action and the movement are completely separate and independent of each other, so it doesn't matter if you actually move or not; it's completely irrelevant. If they were intended to be tied together, hiding would be part of movement and not its own action.

Consider this: if I move behind that pillar and hide, how would you tell if I moved through that secret door or was still behind the pillar?

Your memory of my moving behind that pillar cannot tell you if I slipped through the secret door or not. However, if I didn't take the hide action you would be able to tell whether I did or not, for the same reason you know the location of invisible creatures who aren't hidden.

This is why it's possible to hide behind a pillar with nowhere to go. Your memory may tell you I'm still there, but you no longer have any way of verifying that information once I take the hide action. I'm not claiming you'd forget that I was there or that you'd be surprised that I was still there. It just creates a situation where your senses conflict with your memory. This conflict doesn't exist if the Hide action isn't taken.

 

[Uller]

The invisible gorilla is also a matter of being distracted rather than Perception.

Why do you suppose perception is based on wisdom? It seems to me it's because that's the best measure of someone's resistance to being distracted. No?

I was a soldier. Stealth was a big deal to us. Taking advantage of your target's distraction is a considerable part of it.

 

[Hriston]

Rude characterization of my earlier post

Why bother quoting me if you're going to paraphrase my comments in such an insulting and dismissive way? Do you expect to win an argument with such tactics?

I understand what you're saying, but don't you understand the sensory data and your memory can conflict? That's kinda what's happening when a creature hides. Logic (your memory) tells you the creature is still there, but your senses tell you it's not.

Why do you insist on equating memory with logic if not simply to annoy me? The two are obviously separate phenomena.

This is how real-life magicians make their money.

No they don't. Magicians use misdirection, i.e. distraction, in order to get you to look the other way while they hide something in a place you're not looking.

This is the heart of my point. Because hiding requires an action, it is completely unrelated to the movement. In order to do anything stealthily, you must first take the hide action. However, the action and the movement are completely separate and independent of each other, so it doesn't matter if you actually move or not; it's completely irrelevant. If they were intended to be tied together, hiding would be part of movement and not its own action.

That's why the rules require there be a DM that can take into account the different factors involved. First you tell the DM what you do on your turn, then the DM adjudicates the outcome, calling for a die roll if appropriate. If what you do on your turn sounds like hiding, then the DM may ask you for a Stealth check. At the risk of repeating myself, movement and action needn't be separate.

Consider this: if I move behind that pillar and hide, how would you tell if I moved through that secret door or was still behind the pillar?

Your memory of my moving behind that pillar cannot tell you if I slipped through the secret door or not. However, if I didn't take the hide action you would be able to tell whether I did or not, for the same reason you know the location of invisible creatures who aren't hidden.

This is why it's possible to hide behind a pillar with nowhere to go. Your memory may tell you I'm still there, but you no longer have any way of verifying that information once I take the hide action. I'm not claiming you'd forget that I was there or that you'd be surprised that I was still there. It just creates a situation where your senses conflict with your memory. This conflict doesn't exist if the Hide action isn't taken.

I think [MENTION=6939]Coredump[/MENTION] may be right and that this has devolved into a semantics argument over the timing of the Stealth check, since what I'm saying is that once you are obscured by the pillar, and are then attempting to hide in a location where your position will be unknown if you are successful, then it is perfectly acceptable to resolve that action with a Stealth check which, of course, would be rolled on the turn in which you are attempting that action. This really isn't very different than what I believe you're suggesting.

However, I don't see any conflict that would arise when a creature's location is known, and yet the creature itself is unseen and unheard. A lack of sensory stimuli doesn't override the knowledge of the creature's location. If the observer was somehow misdirected into thinking there was a possibility that the creature was in fact not where the observer knows it to be, for example if the creature were to cast a spell that creates an illusory image of itself in a different location, then there would be a conflict between what the observer knows and what he senses.